3 ms·
Wouldn't this technically fall under copyright infringement? If there were any copyright holders (I assume Da Vinci and Van Gogh's expired a long time ago)... S
by bserge 6y ago
Wouldn't this technically fall under copyright infringement? If there were any copyright holders (I assume Da Vinci and Van Gogh's expired a long time ago)... Since they copy someone else's stuff and claim it as the real thing, making money from their sale.
- jaywalk 6y agoNo, it's fraud. You can make and sell the Mona Lisa all day long as long as you're not trying to pass it off as the Mona Lisa by da Vinci.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoNope. Reproductions are fine, so long as they are out of copyright or if you have permission of the copyright holder. (I don't usually give permission for folks to copy my paintings, but almost always give permission to copy my photos, for example). Copyright itself is different, though: It often means you can't make money off of copyrighted work, but it can just as easily mean that you can't post a reproduction or fan art on social media - but lots of things are out of copyright. Selling a reproduction and passing it off as the original is fraud, and since there is fraud involved, it makes a reproduction a forgery. In general, you use different materials to make a reproduction than you do a forgery as well: A good reproduction might use some materials that folks used in the past, but often mixes it with modern materials. A forger might use things that were never used to trick the tests the experts used and use techniques to make the painting age faster. You could argue that the forger actually is the better craftsman with these distinctions: It is too bad that there is so much deceit involved. I'd buy an honest "forgery" that tricks the experts, but would be angry if someone passes it off as an original.